I know we got no 1st rd pick so starting in rd 2....that's my top 4...gimmee yours...i think interior big body, run stoppin, hole pluggin, double teaming, mass of a man without a doubt most pressing but, in my humble opinion, all four need shorin up..

Last edited by jack_patera on Mon Apr 08, 2013 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I don't believe in necessarily drafting by position. If you have needs that you desperately need to fill in the draft, then you have issues already. BPA is the best way to build up depth IMO and with the way our team is currently loaded, this is our most viable option right now. If we stick to some positional list, we take the chance on drafting a player before they should be drafted and in turn could weaken our depth.

“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

kidhawk wrote:I don't believe in necessarily drafting by position. If you have needs that you desperately need to fill in the draft, then you have issues already. BPA is the best way to build up depth IMO and with the way our team is currently loaded, this is our most viable option right now. If we stick to some positional list, we take the chance on drafting a player before they should be drafted and in turn could weaken our depth.

ok..so if say qb is bpa with our 1st pick, you'd go that route? To me if you say take qb i wouldn't be so sure...I think sometimes bpa works, sometimes not..especially when there are needs...now this team obviously doesn't have major needs, but i'm talkin player here or there to add for a team looking to make a super bowl run...

kidhawk wrote:I don't believe in necessarily drafting by position. If you have needs that you desperately need to fill in the draft, then you have issues already. BPA is the best way to build up depth IMO and with the way our team is currently loaded, this is our most viable option right now. If we stick to some positional list, we take the chance on drafting a player before they should be drafted and in turn could weaken our depth.

ok..so if say qb is bpa with our 1st pick, you'd go that route? To me if you say take qb i wouldn't be so sure...I think sometimes bpa works, sometimes not..especially when there are needs...now this team obviously doesn't have major needs, but i'm talkin player here or there to add for a team looking to make a super bowl run...

BPA isn't always the same from team to team. When you are ranking BPA, you take into account your team needs of course, but you don't rank a position above another unless you are in need of a definite starter from the draft. I don't think we need that at this time, so we take BPA according to OUR ranking system.

“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

A QB in round two wouldn't be that strange. It's not what I'd expect, but if their draft board tells PC/JS that a QB is the BPA at their selection, I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to pick him. Green Bay has used relatively high draft picks on back-up QBs on multiple occassions, even when they had no need at starter.

DavidSeven wrote:A QB in round two wouldn't be that strange. It's not what I'd expect, but if their draft board tells PC/JS that a QB is the BPA at their selection, I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to pick him. Green Bay has used high draft picks on back-up QBs on multiple occassions.

ok so far consensus is bpa...but again, forget qb let's say bpa is a corner or say a safety, again do you take that player where you're already good? An earlier post said bpa based on team needs...ok that i can buy but just flat-out bpa regardless is a tough sell to me...

This team could use depth at both CB and safety IMO. If a stud DB fell into their lap in the second round, I think PC/JS would definitely jump on that without hesitation. I do agree that a huge run stuffing DT is very desireable, but it doesn't seem like the type of position that they need to reach on early in the draft. The guy they're targeting for that role may very well be projected in a later round. I'm sure they will address DT, OL and LB (which I agree are areas that need depth) with those 10 picks -- to me, it doesn't matter too much which order they do it in.

DavidSeven wrote:A QB in round two wouldn't be that strange. It's not what I'd expect, but if their draft board tells PC/JS that a QB is the BPA at their selection, I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to pick him. Green Bay has used high draft picks on back-up QBs on multiple occassions.

ok so far consensus is bpa...but again, forget qb let's say bpa is a corner or say a safety, again do you take that player where you're already good? An earlier post said bpa based on team needs...ok that i can buy but just flat-out bpa regardless is a tough sell to me...

OK, I'll bite...if that corner or safety is a 1st round talent at #56 and fits our defensive scheme? Absolutely.

Ever notice that the Giants, Steelers, and Ravens seemingly just stockpile DL & LB regardless of their perceived needs? They seem to churn out front-seven Pro Bowlers on a consistent basis and account for a total of 6* Super Bowl victories since 2000 (I really don't think I need to explain the asterisk). Seems to be a pretty effective strategy to me.

No need to worry about overpaying talent when you're consistently bringing in new talent on the cheap. Take the best player available. If that talent happens to align with a perceived area of need, bonus. Never, ever, ever pass on elite talent in favor of an inferior player at a position of perceived need. Ever.

DavidSeven wrote:A QB in round two wouldn't be that strange. It's not what I'd expect, but if their draft board tells PC/JS that a QB is the BPA at their selection, I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to pick him. Green Bay has used high draft picks on back-up QBs on multiple occassions.

ok so far consensus is bpa...but again, forget qb let's say bpa is a corner or say a safety, again do you take that player where you're already good? An earlier post said bpa based on team needs...ok that i can buy but just flat-out bpa regardless is a tough sell to me...

Drafting depth where you are strong is not a waste. You have two HUGE considerations when you do this. First, you may get a player who could turn out to be as good or better than the guy you have now and you would be able to save yourself cap space in future years by not overpaying the veteran to stay. The second big issue is injuries. Sure we have a lot of great talent, but depth is important. Sherman was the third CB 2 years ago. He watched as Trufant went out with an injury, then when Thurmond got hurt, he got his shot. Now look how he's shined? Sure this doesn't happen every time with every player, but your odds increase of finding these gems if you have a draft strategy to get the players that best fit what YOUR team looks for in a player. This isn't to say that you necessarily are drafting bpa at a certain position, and it also doesn't necessarily mean the person considered the bpa at THAT position. Look at the Irvin draft last year....most experts wouldn't have put him as the best DE at the time, but he was what fit what our coaches felt was the BPA on OUR board.

“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

DavidSeven wrote:A QB in round two wouldn't be that strange. It's not what I'd expect, but if their draft board tells PC/JS that a QB is the BPA at their selection, I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to pick him. Green Bay has used high draft picks on back-up QBs on multiple occassions.

ok so far consensus is bpa...but again, forget qb let's say bpa is a corner or say a safety, again do you take that player where you're already good? An earlier post said bpa based on team needs...ok that i can buy but just flat-out bpa regardless is a tough sell to me...

OK, I'll bite...if that corner or safety is a 1st round talent at #56 and fits our defensive scheme? Absolutely.

Ever notice that the Giants, Steelers, and Ravens seemingly just stockpile DL & LB regardless of their perceived needs? They seem to churn out front-seven Pro Bowlers on a consistent basis and account for a total of 6* Super Bowl victories since 2000 (I really don't think I need to explain the asterisk). Seems to be a pretty effective strategy to me.

No need to worry about overpaying talent when you're consistently bringing in new talent on the cheap. Take the best player available. If that talent happens to align with a perceived area of need, bonus. Never, ever, ever pass on elite talent in favor of an inferior player at a position of perceived need. Ever.

I follow and 100% agree with that logic...but riddle me this...you have two choices...do you take player 'a' who is a (fill in the blank) position where starter/depth is solid or do you take player 'b' who plays (fill in need position) and your chart basically sees him ever so slightly lower...i'm tempted to say player b...not trying to be boneheaded just trying for spirited discussion..

jack_patera wrote:I follow and 100% agree with that logic...but riddle me this...you have two choices...do you take player 'a' who is a (fill in the blank) position where starter/depth is solid or do you take player 'b' who plays (fill in need position) and your chart basically sees him ever so slightly lower/maybe a round later or so...i'm tempted to say player b...

That is a much better question than your first, IMO, and the only answer I can offer is "it depends". You still need to account for, say, depth at those respective positions in the draft class. To expand on your player A vs B analogy, let me throw in a wrinkle: Player A is far and away a better prospect than the next-best prospect at his position, which we'll consider a "luxury pick". Player B may close to player A in overall value, but so are at least 3 other players at that position of "need". I still might take "luxury" player A and gamble that one of the 4 closely ranked players at the "need" position will be available at my next pick.

The PC/JS Seahawks have historically drafted by need/position in the early rounds in all of their previous drafts- though they are open minded to breaking that mold in certain scenarios (the Kuechly/Barron story last year). I think this year they will be more flexible given the diversity of options, draft depth, and relative ease of need. That said, I think the most likely draft order would be:

2nd: DT3rd: T4th: TE

After that, I think they'll just go with the best player on their board the rest of the way, though they might go for LB Zaviar Gooden at the top of round 5 if he's still there.

Just as a hypothetical:Suppose your big, hard hitting safety is not coming around in contract talks, then maybe the BPA isa big, hard hitting safety. Suppose you can't find anybody you have faith in as a back up quarterback,maybe the BPA is a second round QB.

Best player available is largely a myth. It varies with each team and, mostly, with team needs.It's something everybody talks about but very few teams do. Ozzie Newsome of the Ravensis reputed stick with his board the most of any GM.

You have to look at team needs, why would you not. Now, agreeing what those needs are, especially on a board like this is another thing entirely.Try getting any three people to agree, at any point in the draft, who the BPA is.

I think they trade back for more picks. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't draft until the 3rd round lol. I'm gonna laugh at all the people freaking out about the first 2 rounds with no draft picks. Highlight of my off season since the Harvin trade. I can't wait to see the freak out on this message board.

I already won't watch day 1 of the draft. Day 2 is highly questionable. If I have anything better to do I won't watch Saturday either. I might just go fishing with am radio in my ear to keep me updated.

Day 3 is Seahawks day. Sunday I will watch, research, and hope for the best. I think all the hype, people waiting, build up, etc. is just gonna end up pissing you all off.

I can see us trading out of the second. I think the worthy pass rushers are going to be depleted by then. I don't think we go DL at all this year, considering our FA signings. I don't think we trade for a future pick as I would like what I see in the mid rounds of this draft. No guarantees we'd find quality in the same spots next year.

Trade down for a mid 3rd and extra 4th maybe.

3) TE (I like Kelce if he's here)3) Nickel CB (given we are looking at Winfield, Matthieu could be in play)4) WLB (I like Gooden)4) SS (TJ McDonald perhaps)5) OT (might get Quessenberry here I wouldn't cry)5) 3rd down RB (Kerwynn Williams and his hands?)

Late round K, WRs (Marquess Wilson and Brandon Kaufman since I live in eastern WA), QB (I do like Jordan Rodgers).

I think it's partially BPA but the top half of the draft would have a bias towards DT, OT and OLB. A second grouping mid draft would be WR, DE, TE and RB/FB. The third grouping with the late picks would be S, QB, CB and K... And to deviate from those groupings, a player would have to have a significant value on their board